4.8 Article

High rates of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients with high liver cell proliferative activity

期刊

HEPATOLOGY
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 523-528

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1053/jhep.2001.26820

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevalence, risk factors, and clinical significance of high liver cell proliferative activity were investigated in 208 well-compensated cirrhotic patients (150 men; 50 years; 135 with chronic hepatitis C) who had been under prospective surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with annual abdominal ultrasound (US) and serum a-fetoprotein (AFP) determination. Immunostaining for proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) was employed to assess liver cell proliferative activity in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded liver specimens. The percentage of reactive nuclei was calculated by a computer-assisted image analysis system. The overall PCNA labeling index (LI) ranged from 0.1% to 12.5% (mean, 2.1%), being significantly higher in the 50 patients who developed HCC during 88 +/- 42 months of follow-up than in the 158 patients who remained cancer-free (3.6% +/- 72.4% vs. 1.6% +/- 1.5%; P < .0001). By receiver operating curve (ROC), a 2.0% cut-off value of PCNA-LI discriminated between patients at high and low risk for developing cancer. By multivariate analysis, high histologic grading scores and gender were associated to PCNA LI >2.0%. The yearly incidence of HCC was 5.2% for the 80 patients with PCNA-LI >2.0% compared with 1.1% for the 128 with low PCNA-LI (relative risk, 4.90; 95% CI, 2.63-9.55). By multivariate analysis, PCNA-LI >2.0% was the strongest independent predictor of cancer (hazard ratio, 5.49; 95% CI, 2.90-10.37). Overall, survival was significantly lower in patients with high liver cell proliferative activity rates than in those with low proliferative rates (10% vs. 75%; P < .0001). In conclusion, development of HCC in patients with compensated cirrhosis seems to be reliably predicted by liver cell proliferation status.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据